This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: embedded target breakage [Was: Re: Patch commit requirements]
- To: geoffk at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: embedded target breakage [Was: Re: Patch commit requirements]
- From: Toshi Morita <tm2 at best dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> > From: Toshi Morita <tm2@best.com>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > From my viewpoint, the bottleneck is in the patch review and
> > approval process. I've sent a patch which fixes the h8300-hms
> > bootstrap problem TWICE to gcc-patches, and it was never reviewed or
> > accepted for inclusion.
> >
> > In addition, there are about six other patches I've posted which fix
> > various other problems for which I'm waiting for approval before
> > doing any other work.
> >
> > I would do more work on gcc, but right now it feels like all my
> > patches are being posted into a huge black hole, so it's pretty
> > discouraging. I'm sure other people feel the same way, since I see
> > them post messages entitled "My Unreviewed Patches" enumerating
> > their unreviewed patches.
>
> I couldn't find a h8300-related patch in the last 4000 messages sent
> to gcc-patches, other than one trivial thing I just approved.
> However, 4000 messages only takes us back three months, so it's
> possible your patch was before that.
April 14, 2001.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00798.html
> I believe that a high proportion of patches sent to the list do get
> reviewed. The problem is that if a patch gets missed, there is no
> way of keeping track of the backlog and no time to work on it even if
> there was; and after a few months, a patch really needs to be
> re-tested before adding it in anyway.
I don't think my removal of the "release F-1" text message from the
assembly output of the H8300 codegen would change too radically
between releases....
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-03/msg01957.html
nor the v850 GC bugfix in the v850 backend...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-03/msg00624.html
...and I know the force_to_mode bug is still in 3.0 because
I tested 3.0 for this bug last night, and it was indeed still
present, so I filed a GNATS PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg01267.html
Also see GNATS PR 3311
All four of these patches are unreviewed, and I have not
received any feedback on them.
Toshi